.

Readers Write: A Case for Recalls

Problems still exist in government, even though lake park will no longer be a reality, says Muskego resident.

Recently, while collecting recall signatures, I have been asked “why we have not dropped the recalls now that we (MEG) killed the lake park?” Put simply, as far as I am concerned, the lake park was only the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

The recalls were initiated in response to a pattern of voting and manner of conducting City business which bypasses legal processes when it suits them, minimizes citizen input and which is detrimental to the long term interests of the citizens of Muskego.

As an example, Mayor Chiaverotti, Ald. Schaumberg and Ald. Werner voted to spend $2.6 Million dollars on ‘beautification’ of Pioneer Drive for the benefit of eight (8) businesses and against input from 75 affected residents. If this is not putting the interest of certain businesses ahead of the interests of residents, I don’t know what is. Further, why is this occurring while we are smack in the middle of the Janesville Road project (City share of cost approximately $10 Million).

Related to the park, however, I must point out that:

1. While campaigning for office a year ago, both Chiaverotti and Werner repeatedly made campaign promises that ‘the park was dead’, ‘the park would not be back’ and, in the case of Chiaverotti, that ‘she would oppose the park if elected mayor’. So much for trust.

2. The mayor incurred roughly $10,000 of OUR MONEY in legal fees to find ways to ignore the direct legislation petition, and the aldermen voted to ignore the petition in violation of State statutes.

3. These elected officials DID NOT stop the park in response to citizen input. Instead, they voted to ‘delay the park and spend $40,000” to justify why they should still go thru with the purchase.

4. The developers/property owners are the ones who ‘killed the park”. While that may reassure those of us with short memories, the rest of us are well aware that the developer, not the city, “killed the deal” last time, only to bring it back after Werner and Chiaverotti were (re)elected. (DO IT TO ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU; DO IT TO ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME).

The deceptive manner in which these individuals handled the park project, PROVIDING ONLY 8 DAYS OF NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED PURCHASE (AND NEVER A LEGAL PUBLIC HEARING) PRIOR TO VOTING TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE TWO MANSIONS, is the real issue.

The above are just a few of the many reasons for recalling these individuals. You can verify all of this and much more for yourself on the City website.

Citizens of Muskego should be able to trust the officials they elect to actually represent the interests of the voters. These three individuals have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT WE, AS VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS IN MUSKEGO WANT.

Suzi Link

Muskego Mike April 16, 2012 at 09:57 PM
Good luck with your cause... It's going to be tough to keep people interested.
Mike Hunt April 16, 2012 at 10:14 PM
I heard your signature drive isn't going so well. I guess when you use as your main base a place owned by a guy who was convicted of attempting to entice a child for immoral purposes, no one wants to drive up. http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid=7F78560C6C3EDEDB177530A3D42FC828.render6?caseNo=1988CF000465&countyNo=67&cacheId=D0CA588CA7970B46673E00C37B89043F&recordCount=32&offset=27&mode=details&submit=View+Case+Details
Matt Johnson April 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM
#1. The 2010 Bring Back the Lake plan was dead. It was and that is what the mayor and Ald. Werner said. The 2011 plan was a new proposal and presented to the city by the owners/developer. #2. No one had to find a way to declare the petition bull and void. It is my opinion that it was a publiciity ploy first and foremost. From a 2/15 Patch article: "Sharon Mueller, finance director for the city, determined the petition was "insufficient and not in proper form" because a proposed resolution or ordinance was not attached to it as required by state statutes. The certificate of insufficiency stated, 'If the paragraph appearing at the top of the Petition is intended to be a resolution, the words, 'BE IT RESOLVED that' must be added to the beginning of the paragraph." #3. This resolution came from a meeting a couple alderpeople had with a few lake residents. It was what your side was asking for and they got it. As for gaining 3.400 signatures in 8+ days, fear is an easy emotion to stoke. #4. We are now recalling people based on what COULD happen in the future? This recall effort is all about anger and a few years of frustration over not having power or say in the city government. Muskego is in great financial shape. Question: Why don't we work together to improve our future here?
The Anti-Alinsky April 17, 2012 at 02:03 AM
Suzi is in full spin mode. 1) As Mr. Johnson stated above, this was a different, much smaller version of a lake park than Bring Back the Lake. 2) MEGNOG is responsible for the $10,000 in attorney's fees since they forced the city to review their options. The city's attorney said that the direct legislation petition did not meet either requirement to be advanced by the common council. If you disagree you always have the option of taking it to court. Since you didn't even start the process I think it is safe to say even MEGNOG knew the attorney was right. 3) While the resolution for an ad-hoc committee did not outright kill the lake park purchase, it did put the brakes on the purchase while it gathered more information. Ironically, what MEGNOG was screaming for the entire time. 4) I have no doubt the reason the developer withdrew the offer was because he was sick of your antics and felt it was time to move on. And where were you since August when the proposal was first brought forward? Here's a link from August that I know you are aware of since you posted to it: http://muskego.patch.com/articles/committee-of-the-whole-takes-a-look-at-lake-development-options#comments_list I know you are unhappy with the current leadership of the city, but there is an election every year in April. Present your case to the citizens of the city then and let them decide.
barb schroeder April 17, 2012 at 08:07 AM
chip Suzi Link You mention that your recalls are because of a " pattern of voting and manner of conducting City business which bypasses legal processes". What legal processes are you referring to? It is my understanding that any purchase by the city less than $10 million does not require a referendum or input from the citizens. Your pursuit of a referendum after the vote by council to purchase the land was the real attempt to bypass the legal process. #2 above At the council meeting, you heard the city atty: advise the mayor there was no validity to your petition. It was done incorrectly, was after the fact and had no standing. So what state statute did council violate when they voted to ignor you? The city was forced to spend $10,000 to defend itself from your frivilous petition. Thanks You mention the mayor voted to make improvements to Pioneer drive. Was the mayor casting the tie breaking vote on this purposal? Please verify this so I know what you are saying is true. She only votes to break a tie. And doesn't it make sense (cost effective,too) to coordinate the adjoining road projects. P.S. Check your #'s on Muskego's share of the Janesville road project. I think you are a little high. I would like answers to my questions. As a leader of the recall group you need to be factual in your accusations.
thomas l. ralston April 17, 2012 at 01:50 PM
Yeah Suzi, what Barb said goes for me too. I'd say more, but you'd probably accuse me of obsessing over you again.
JC April 17, 2012 at 01:57 PM
Suzi, you are fighting a loosing battle. You can't recall someone on something that didn't but could have happened. Time would be better spent finding a better candidate to run next election.
Interested Party April 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM
For God's sake Suzi, give it a rest. Your vindicative and controlling behavior is becoming quite tedious. Oh and I also agree with Barb and Tom.
Mike Hunt April 18, 2012 at 02:00 PM
First, the recall organizers' complaint was the lake park. That issue was killed, so they moved on to bringing up Parkland Mall. They eventually realized that talking about Parkland Mall was pointless, so now they bring up the redevelopment of Pioneer Drive? Sheer, desperate, lunacy!
The Warrior April 18, 2012 at 03:24 PM
lunacy? are you calling some of these people lunatics? I think they are. They are so overwhelmed with anger. And I agree with Barb, Tom, Mike, Matt and Alinsky!
Suzi Link April 18, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Ms. Schroeder 1. I AM NOT AND HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A ‘LEADER OF THE RECALL GROUP”. 2. The above “letter to the editor” represents MY PERSONAL OPINIONS ONLY. 3. I stand by my facts as written and disagree with your claim that $3.4 Million (plus future costs) is “frivolous”. You wanted examples of the “pattern of voting and manner of conducting …. bypasses legal processes”. There are many to pick from, including REFUSAL to conduct legal public hearings despite numerous formal public requests, irresponsibly voting to obligate taxpayers for discretionary/unnecessary projects with no due diligence (ie. responsible data collection, analysis of both cost/benefit, constituent desires, etc), deceptive manipulation of closed sessions and non-citizen-comment meetings to justify EIGHT (8) DAYS NOTICE TO PUBLIC (website ONLY, no publication) PRIOR TO COUNCIL VOTE, (which was the ONLY reason $10,000 attorney fees spent by the Mayor using OUR MONEY could use to ignore the referendum per the Direct Legislation Petition), disregard for public input on various projects PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR (even if she did not cast a ‘tie-breaking vote”) BTW: Pioneer Drive is a “beautification” project, not necessary road repair. Regarding the $10 Million MANDATORY REFERENDUM ordinance. The ordinance in question DOES NOT BAN REFERENDUMS on lesser amounts. I hope that clears things up for you.
Suzi Link April 18, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Mr. Hunt: What you are calling "Sheer, desperate, lunacy!" are simply sincere and legitimate responses to various requests for "examples" of the "reasons for recall" (as filed with the City Clerk). My only reccomendation is that, if you don't like the answers, you might try to stop asking the questions. BTW: To the best of my knowledge, the RECALLS WERE INITIATED PRIOR TO THE PARK BEING "KILLED". Therefore, your comment is, at best, misleading.
Suzi Link April 19, 2012 at 04:14 PM
Ms. Schroeder 1. I AM NOT AND HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A ‘LEADER OF THE RECALL GROUP”. 2. The above “letter to the editor” represents MY PERSONAL OPINIONS ONLY. 3. I stand by my facts as written and disagree with your claim that $3.4 Million (plus future costs) is “frivolous”. You wanted examples of the “pattern of voting and manner of conducting …. bypasses legal processes”. There are many to pick from, including REFUSAL to conduct legal public hearings despite numerous formal public requests, irresponsibly voting to obligate taxpayers for discretionary/unnecessary projects with no due diligence (ie. responsible data collection, analysis of both cost/benefit, constituent desires, etc), deceptive manipulation of closed sessions and non-citizen-comment meetings to justify EIGHT (8) DAYS NOTICE TO PUBLIC (website ONLY, no publication) PRIOR TO COUNCIL VOTE, (which was the ONLY reason $10,000 attorney fees spent by the Mayor using OUR MONEY could use to ignore the referendum per the Direct Legislation Petition), disregard for public input on various projects PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR (even if she did not cast a ‘tie-breaking vote”) BTW: Pioneer Drive is a “beautification” project, not necessary road repair. Regarding the $10 Million MANDATORY REFERENDUM ordinance. The ordinance in question DOES NOT BAN REFERENDUMS on lesser amounts.
barb schroeder April 19, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Suzi Link I am sure you have read my request for answers to your accusations against the mayor in my above comment. I am still waiting for a sincere and legitimate response to my request. I may not like the answers but I am asking the questions, I feel accusations should have facts behind them. Thanks barb schroeder
Matt Johnson April 19, 2012 at 05:39 PM
But they could be stopped at any time. Correct? There is no logical reason to have these recalls. The two aldermen only have a year left on their current terms. Like it has been said: If you stand with Walker or you oppose the recall attempt against the governor, then you cannot in good faith and with logic, support the Muskego recalls.
Mike Hunt April 20, 2012 at 02:55 AM
I think MEG really stands for Muskego for Enticing Goons. After all, they use a place owned by this guy as their main base to collect signatures for their recall drive: http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid=7F78560C6C3EDEDB177530A3D42FC828.render6?caseNo=1988CF000465&countyNo=67&cacheId=D0CA588CA7970B46673E00C37B89043F&recordCount=32&offset=27&mode=details&submit=View+Case+Details

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something